Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is amazing and shows again why the AGW crowd does not believe in actual science. Read up about the "null hypothesis". It is the cornerstone of valid science, which the AGW crowd throws out the window.
It is incumbent upon those proposing the hypothesis to disprove the null hypothesis, not the opposite. In this fashion (by violating the cornerstone of the scientific method), AGW is a return to medieval times, in which we embrace sorcery, magic, and spirits to explain phenomenon. AGW is a slap in the face of rational science and a vacation of reason.
This person has repeatedly referenced the null hypothesis, but from his comments on this and other threads, I doubt that he himself even understands the concepts. The null hypothesis cannot be disproven; we can only assess the probability that it is true. What probability (p value) would convince you that two factors are related and not coincidental? Scientists have previously assessed a p = 0.05 for man made global warming. Meaning there is only 5% chance that human activity and global warming are not linked, or 95% probability that human activity is contributing to global warming. Recently this confidence has been increased even further.
In medical science it is common to use p values and confidence intervals to "prove" that a new treatment is superior to placebo or to standard of care. There are accepted levels which are considered to be "statistically significant". These levels may be more or less stringent when it comes to climate.
I was done with this after the NOAA adjusted the raw temperature data when it didn't produce the warming trend they expected. There are no integrity checks in the process. And we know leftists will lie incessantly to lower your resistance to devoting your energy and productivity to their desire to bring about world equality. (another huge joke)
Here's what needs to happen IMHO.
All temperature recording devices should be secured and should electronically report results to more than one location. Those results should be verified monthly for integrity. Satellite measurements should be overlapping in a region and verify the sensors' raw temp measurements with high accuracy and low variability.
There needs to be two identical climate prediction models whose programming parameters have been agreed upon by climate scientists on BOTH sides of the issue.
The climate prediction code needs to be hashed and the hashes compared between the two models before entering any data. The raw data documents need to be hashed and compared before entry into the models. There should be a similar computation and comparison after the data is entered. Run the simulation and the results should be the same from both models. If not, somebody made an error.
At that point, the results are what they are. If any adjustment is needed, that would have to be agreed upon between the two camps. If they can't agree on a justification, the measurements stand.
I bet climate alarmists would not like the results either.
NASA is leaning towards a global cooling pattern based on the solar minimum we are currently experiencing. The last two solar minimums heralded the beginnings of little ice ages. One was the Maunder minimum and I can't remember the name of the other at the moment. I think this is a likely scenario with more than one period of correlation.
This person has repeatedly referenced the null hypothesis, but from his comments on this and other threads, I doubt that he himself even understands the concepts. The null hypothesis cannot be disproven; we can only assess the probability that it is true. What probability (p value) would convince you that two factors are related and not coincidental? Scientists have previously assessed a p = 0.05 for man made global warming. Meaning there is only 5% chance that human activity and global warming are not linked, or 95% probability that human activity is contributing to global warming. Recently this confidence has been increased even further.
In medical science it is common to use p values and confidence intervals to "prove" that a new treatment is superior to placebo or to standard of care. There are accepted levels which are considered to be "statistically significant". These levels may be more or less stringent when it comes to climate.
Do you just push the "I believe" button that CO2 alone is the primary control mechanism of climate variations?
The earth's climate system is a complex and chaotic system. It reminds me of the wild swings in human behavior caused by random events that drive the stock market. Ever run a Monte Carlo simulation on how your retirement might turn out based on market outcomes? LOL. You'll either be eating cat food in a flop house or vacationing on your yacht or you might experience any financial condition in-between those extremes.
My point? Show me a climate scientist or any scientist for that matter who can predict the stock market and I will follow his/her guidance on what the earth's future climate will look like. Until then, it's just a political ruse to bring about world socialism.
The earth's climate system is a complex and chaotic system. It reminds me of the wild swings in human behavior caused by random events that drive the stock market. Ever run a Monte Carlo simulation on how your retirement might turn out based on market outcomes? LOL. You'll either be eating cat food in a flop house or vacationing on your yacht or you might experience any financial condition in-between those extremes.
My point? Show me a climate scientist or any scientist for that matter who can predict the stock market and I will follow his/her guidance on what the earth's future climate will look like. Until then, it's just a political ruse to bring about world socialism.
The Monte Carlo simulation may have a wide range of possible results, but it can tell you which are most likely given certain assumptions. If the simulation says you should save 10% of your income per year, do you ignore it and spend all your savings just because the prediction is not precise? That would be foolish, in my opinion, but hey, it's your life.
You actually make a good point without realizing it. Nothing in the future can be predicted with certainty, but we can use statistics to calculate probability of certain outcomes. I can't guarantee that you'll get lung cancer if you smoke, or die in a car crash if you don't wear seatbelts, but statistics would show that your chance of a long healthy life are greater if you avoid those behaviors.
The past two Aprils have been very cold on the Great Plains and this year looks to be no exception. There's been more abrupt shifts from winter to summer patterns in late April/early May and shorter true springs. If a cold April is followed by a much warmer and drier than normal May, does that still disprove climate change?
Not all dentists (4 out of 5) agree that brushing daily prevents cavities. Do you want your breath smell like a sardine sandwich, too?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
